Hi David,
On Jan 12, 2007, at 00:48 , David Dorward wrote:
> Certainly it made it relatively easy to import the entire CVS tree
> with that fun Parser class in it and then remove the stuff that
> wouldn't compile without edits / bits from other sources.
You made me want to try it again, and indeed importing seems to go
pretty well. Still rather confused by the interface, not sure I like
the editor, but it could be a good way to work with the rather
complex nature of the css validator and its large number of files/
classes.
> Thanks, I was planning to ask for some CVS access once I'd got the
> groundwork laid. I want to get things a bit cleaner and better
> structured before I go making code public.
Whenever you are ready (and, perhaps, before that), send me an ssh
public key (preferably through some reasonably safe channel) and I
will kick in the process to make you an account.
> I'm also wondering about the best way to handle distribution. So, some
> questions which I'll be looking for answers to at some point (if
> anyone here can answer them - super):
Not considering myself expert enough to have authoritative answers,
but I can give my thoughts.
> Would bundling it up in the main .jar work?
> Could a wrapper detect if the command line or GUI version should run?
I guess what we're doing currently is rather similar. The jar is
created for a servlet usage, but by calling a specific class
java -classpath $CLASSPATH:css-validator.jar
org.w3c.css.css.CssValidator
one gets the commandline interface.
Or we could make different builds for different uses: one for the
servlet, one for the GUI. I am assuming this is feasible.
> What happens if the user doesn't have SWT?
>
> Should we distribute SWT? If so, then how to go about it, it has OS
> specific bindings.
>
> Eclipse distributes SWT, and has OS specific packages (and the Windows
> version, at least, has a native system executable to run Eclipse
> itself).
No idea about technical side, I'll let others more knowledgeable
chime in.
The common practice seems to be "distribute os-specific packages",
but that can be a lot of work. in legal terms, I think it's OK to
distribute SWT, provided we make it clear that SWT is distributed
under eclipse public license, and the rest under W3C software
license. I don't think the two are compatible enough to let us
distribute SWT under w3c license.
--
olivier